Neural Responses to a Putative Set‐shifting Task in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While much progress has been made toward understanding the neurobiology of social and communication deficits associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), less is known regarding the neurobiological basis of restricted and repetitive behaviors (RRBs) central to the ASD diagnosis. Symptom severity for RRBs in ASD is associated with cognitive inflexibility. Thus, understanding the neural mechanisms underlying cognitive inflexibility in ASD is critical for tailoring therapies to treat this understudied yet pervasive symptom. Here we used a set-shifting paradigm adopted from the developmental cognitive neuroscience literature involving flexible switching between stimulus categories to examine task performance and neural responses in children with ASD. Behaviorally, we found little evidence for group differences in performance on the set-shifting task. Compared with typically developing children, children with ASD exhibited greater activation of the parahippocampal gyrus during performance on trials requiring switching. These findings suggest that children with ASD may need to recruit memory-based neural systems to a greater degree when learning to flexibly associate stimuli with responses. LAY SUMMARY: Children with autism often struggle to behave in a flexible way when faced with unexpected challenges. We examined brain responses during a task thought to involve flexible thinking and found that compared with typically developing children, those with autism relied more on brain areas involved in learning and memory to complete the task. This study helps us to understand what types of cognitive tasks are best suited for exploring the neural basis of cognitive flexibility in children with autism. Autism Res 2020, 13: 1501-1515. © 2020 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".